The terms “indigenous” and “indigeneity” are typically used to refer to collectives inhabiting specific areas. The common assumption associated with these terms is the existence of unchanged cultures, fixed beliefs, and political systems, and a perception of exoticism due to their isolation from external developments. This understanding represents a form of hermeneutical and testimonial injustice, as their existence is seen as a benchmark for comparing progress conditions. This comparison then generates various definitions of successful development within the context of modern nation-states. Even when indigeneity are included as stakeholders in public policy formulation, their position is no more than artifacts of a glorified past, revered and maintained as romantic monuments. Thus, this involvement is merely oriented toward preservation. In reality, they are social entities with historical consciousness and future orientations. Like modern societies, they also have a vision of civilization. They should be included as participants, ensuring their voices are meaningful in constructing collective knowledge and interpretation (testimonial & hermeneutical justice) in pursuing well-being.

Several attempts have been made to discourse indigeneity in Indonesia, ranging from efforts to build a distinctive Indonesian or Nusantara philosophy to cultural, social, economic, and political discourses. Simply put, from theoretical to practical spectrums. Nusantara is an Old Javanese term that initially referred to the conquered territories of the Majapahit empire, corresponding to present-day Indonesia. One consistent philosophical event is the conference we are organizing, the 12th International Conference on Nusantara Philosophy (ICNP). This annual conference tends to highlight and reexamine the progress of the development of the Nusantara Philosophy that has been pursued in Indonesia.

How far has the development gone, and in what direction is it headed? Is it merely to systematize thoughts that appear different from the grandeur of Western philosophy? Or is it built to demonstrate a philosophy that is post-colonial but emancipatory towards all post colonial injustices? Is emancipation assumed only in philosophical orientation? If expanded in a practical context through sustainable development discourse, in what function can Nusantara Philosophy be involved?

The term “sustainability” within the concept of a country’s development remains unclear, whether it refers to environmental sustainability or merely capitalistic economic growth. Similarly, the assumption of “well-being” seemingly guaranteed by sustainable development projects remains ambiguous. We never really know whether the “well-being” understood and intended by the state truly represents a collective perception of well-being or is instead produced within the framework of state hegemony in the ethos of development.

Through this conference, “sustainable development” will be positioned as a grand narrative that needs to be re-examined, critiqued, and if necessary, deconstructed. In other words, this conference tends to take indigeneity not only to develop Nusantara Philosophy but also to rethink the position of indigeneity in the process of public policy formulation in Indonesia. The derivative questions are: “Is the existence of indigeneity always stuck merely as a silenced subaltern? How can the depiction of collective well-being in the ethos of developmentalism align with the well-being assumed from an indigenous point of view? Can the spirit of cultural and ecological conservation, which tends to be essentialist, run parallel with the development agenda which prioritize economic growth? Then, what is the ontological and epistemic status of the intended spirit of sustainability?”

Indigeneity, encompassing knowledge, values, and morality, is predominantly assumed with essentialism. Noble culture is the most easily identifiable mechanism of indigenous that still exists today. Inevitably, the interpretation of indigeneity needs to be expanded to include functional and utilitarian considerations. Indigeneity should not be confined to mere essentialist ethos, stuck in historical romanticism. It must be involved in the competition of epistemic and ethical discourse in public policy oriented towards sustainable living and development. Therefore, we invite philosophy experts, philosophy scholars, well-being theorists, well-being philosophers, public policy practitioners, public policy experts, and individuals from various scientific backgrounds to challenge the idea of sustainable development and at the same time work collectively to build a paradigmatic foundation for the development of Nusantara Philosophy.